Adam Watson (00:00.674):
Welcome back to “Simplifying the State,” the podcast where we break down politics so you don’t have to figure out why the National Guard has been deployed from your For You page. I’m Adam Watson.
Nicholas Perrin (00:12.549):
I’m Nicholas Perrin.
Adam Watson (00:13.750):
We were planning to do an episode this week on the history of price gouging in the U.S. military, but we’re pushing that to next week because there’s a lot of time-sensitive and relevant news to talk about today. I think we all know what that is.
Obviously, it’s not the GOP mega bill and its implications for the farming industry—though maybe another time. We’re talking about the protests, what’s happening in L.A., the National Guard deployment—all of that.
So, Nicholas, what were your initial reactions to the protests in Los Angeles, which started on Friday?
Nicholas Perrin (01:23.537):
If we’re just talking about the protests themselves, I thought it was pretty expected. The fact that some of it turned into rioting and caused some property damage wasn’t surprising—it happens during a lot of protests.
That said, it wasn’t widespread, and overall, it was about what I anticipated. What happened afterward, though, definitely surprised me more.
Adam Watson (02:06.722):
Yeah, most of the protests have been nonviolent. When I first saw the reports from L.A., I figured it wouldn’t be anything unusual. Ever since Trump’s deportation policies started unfolding, we’ve seen protests pop up in communities where deportations were attempted. Usually, it’s small-scale—people filming, protesting for an hour or two, and then heading out.
But this time was different. It all started with an ICE raid at a Home Depot, where agents began rounding people up. This came after Stephen Miller—a top White House aide and key figure in translating Trump’s immigration goals into policy—called a meeting with ICE leadership. He apparently grilled them for failing to meet the administration’s benchmark of 3,000 deportations a day, part of the broader goal of 1 million deportations in the first year.
That pressure led to the raid. ICE started targeting places frequented by undocumented immigrants and just began arresting people en masse.
The protests grew, and in response, Trump federalized—against the wishes of the California governor—2,000 members of the California National Guard and deployed them to Los Angeles. Nicholas, what do you make of that move—using the National Guard essentially as a police force?
Nicholas Perrin (04:30.011):
I thought it was very unusual and arguably unconstitutional. The last time we saw something like this was during the Civil Rights Era, when President Eisenhower deployed the National Guard to enforce desegregation in Little Rock.
That action was about protecting constitutional rights. This situation doesn’t feel comparable. Trump argues that the protests amount to a rebellion against the federal government. Technically, that’s plausible, but under scrutiny, the justification falls apart.
Gavin Newsom is suing the Trump administration over the deployment, and the legal grounds look shaky. It’s a big gamble on Trump’s part and, in my opinion, unnecessary.
Adam Watson (05:58.030):
Right. For context, the last time the National Guard was federalized against a sitting governor’s wishes was in 1965. President Lyndon Johnson used the Insurrection Act to protect civil rights protesters in Selma, Alabama, despite objections from Gov. George Wallace, a notorious segregationist.
About an hour ago, the state of California filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over this deployment. A judge issued a temporary stay, ruling that the federalization was unlawful. According to his 36-page opinion:
“His actions were illegal, both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the governor forthwith.”
The Justice Department has filed a notice of appeal. I could see this going to the Supreme Court. It’s a conservative-majority court, but it has ruled in favor of states’ rights before, so that could work in California’s favor.
Trump invoked Title 10, U.S. Code Section 12406, which allows the president to federalize the National Guard when:
- The U.S. or its territories are invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
- There is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government; or
- The president is unable to enforce federal law with regular forces.
The law also states that orders must be issued through the governors of the states. Gavin Newsom says he was not consulted, which may be one of the key reasons the judge sided with California.
Where do you think the lawsuit could go from here, and how do you think the Supreme Court might rule?
Nicholas Perrin (09:44.729):
I think it’s pretty likely this makes it to the Supreme Court, and if it does, well, it’s hard to predict. When Trump previously tried to undo birthright citizenship, the court struck it down. I believe it was a 5-4 decision.
Adam Watson (10:58.306):
Yeah, I think that’s right.
Nicholas Perrin (11:00.057):
So, for this, I could see a similar result—the court could rule that the federalization of the National Guard in this case is unlawful. But a 5-4 ruling is narrow, and there’s a real possibility the court could side with the federal government.
Adam Watson (11:38.946):
If there’s a ruling soon, I think it’ll just be on the temporary stay—whether the National Guard can be returned to California while the case is pending. I think the court might say no, allowing Trump to keep the Guard in place during the legal fight.
Shortly after deploying the first 2,000 Guard members, Trump also sent 700 active-duty Marines from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles. Then he deployed another 2,000 National Guard troops.
In the first couple of days, the Guard operated without logistical support—no fuel, food, or proper sleeping quarters. I’m not sure if that’s changed; I haven’t seen updates.
The judge hasn’t ruled on the Marines yet. He said he’s waiting for confirmation that they’re actually in L.A., since the governor claims they aren’t coordinating with state officials.
But still, it’s astonishing that the president deployed 700 active-duty Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to a city where, by most accounts, there isn’t widespread chaos.
Adam Watson (13:58.082):
Right-wing outlets like Fox News have painted a picture of total collapse—fires, chaos, lawlessness. But if you watch footage from mainstream outlets or just ordinary people downtown, it’s clear that’s not the case.
There are protests, yes. Some agitators have turned parts of them violent. But it’s not out of control. The local police chief even said the National Guard wasn’t necessary. So Nicholas, what’s your take on the Marine deployment? These aren’t weekend warriors—these are active-duty soldiers—being sent in when even the police say they don’t need backup.
Nicholas Perrin (15:14.661):
Yeah, I think the Marines are completely unnecessary. Like you said, even if the Guard is recalled, the police didn’t ask for them in the first place. I don’t know what the Marines are supposed to be doing there.
To me, it feels like a power move. I don’t want to sound over-the-top, but it does have that authoritarian vibe—like a scare tactic to discourage people from protesting or interfering with future ICE raids.
Adam Watson (16:03.704):
I don’t think that’s far-fetched. Sending in Marines when the Guard hasn’t even been stretched thin is extreme. California has an 18,000-member National Guard—Trump only called up 4,000. He could’ve sent more if needed.
Deploying active-duty Marines in this context feels like a dangerous precedent. It’s authoritarian. It sends a chilling message about how dissent might be handled moving forward. To quell a protest—to quell protesters in Los Angeles—people who are protesting and are then committing violence and are then burning public property, that is a criminal act, and they should be prosecuted. Obviously, that is illegal. You cannot do that. You should be protesting peacefully. Sending Marines to a city that is seeing protests can, I feel like, only be described as a scare tactic, as a show of force by this administration that it does not want protests.
Moving on, though—from L.A.—protests about ICE have spread across the country to several cities like Chicago and New York. There were a couple in St. Louis, Texas, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin. Spokane, Washington saw one, so did Seattle.
But then there also is a larger protest movement planned for Saturday, which is the “No Kings” rallies. So it’s more than 1,900 protests and events because, on Saturday, Trump is holding his military parade for what he says is the 250th anniversary of the founding of the Continental Army, but also happens to coincide with his birthday. So many people have suggested that he’s really throwing the military parade for his birthday. He has denied this. It’s really up to interpretation, I suppose. But it kind of suggests that he does want the military parade for his birthday.
Anyway, he said that those who were protesting would see—and I’m paraphrasing here—but he said they would see more force than the protests in Los Angeles would see. So he is actively telling people who are going to protests, who have said themselves they are nonviolent, that they will see a sort of more intense crackdown than what we’re seeing in Los Angeles, which—I don’t know how you can get more intense than 4,000 National Guard and 700 Marines.
But, you know, also within California, this happened this morning—or this afternoon. Yeah, it was this afternoon. California Sen. Alex Padilla—he was at a Kristi Noem, who was the secretary of Homeland Security, giving a press conference in Los Angeles. California Sen. Alex Padilla kind of got in, and he started to interrupt the press conference.
He said he was asking the secretary a question about what she was saying. I don’t know if he said what his question was on the clip that I watched, but he asked that question. And then he was forced out of the room and then forced onto the ground, and then handcuffed and detained by various security officials.
Nicholas, what do you think of that? Just the kind of image of a senator of the United States who is asking a question of a federal official, then being forced out—literally pushed out. He identified himself as a senator. He said, “I’m Sen. Alex Padilla” as he was being forced out, and then was forced onto the ground and handcuffed. What do you think of that image?
Nicholas:
Well, it certainly does not look good for the federal government in the current state of the United States. Yeah, because like in the video, you could see that some of the people who were pushing him out of the room and putting him on the ground were FBI agents. So it doesn’t really look too good for them either.
And like, according to a quick Google search, his question was, quote, “Secretary, I want to know why you insist on exaggerating and embellishing.” But then it stops there because that’s when he was starting to get pushed down and had to identify himself and whatnot.
Adam Watson (21:45):
So Noem claimed that Padilla hadn’t identified himself and, quote, “lunged” at her. He then dismissed this as lies. If you watch the clip—yeah, he identified himself as “Sen. Alex Padilla.” He said, “I’m Sen. Alex Padilla.” I assume she possibly recognized him. I mean, there are only 100 senators.
Nicholas: (22:04):
Yeah, it really doesn’t seem like it.
Adam Watson (22:14):
I mean, even if she didn’t recognize him, I mean, it’s still—you’re forcing out a U.S. senator. But I feel like you’re saying, if they would do this to a senator in the open while the cameras are rolling—and this is something that I heard someone say—then what would they do to somebody, possibly, when the cameras aren’t rolling? Who is not a senator?
Adam Watson (22:49):
That’s just something I found kind of interesting. Ahead of Saturday’s “No Kings” rallies, the governors of Texas and Missouri have both activated their National Guard. The governor of Missouri, Mike Kehoe, said he is activating the National Guard as a precautionary measure.
He said, quote, “We respect and will defend the right to peacefully protest, but we will not tolerate violence or lawlessness in our state.” Let me see if I can find the quote. Yeah—he said, quote, “While other states may wait for chaos to ensue, the state of Missouri is taking a proactive approach in the event that assistance is needed to support local law enforcement in protecting our citizens and communities.”
So here’s the thing: it seems as though this is not a deploying of National Guard troops automatically. I think what this is doing is basically saying that if they need them, they can respond very quickly. At least, that’s how I’m interpreting it based on the statements he gave.
The Missouri House of Representatives minority leader—Ashley On… Ashley, I think that’s how you pronounce their last name—called Kehoe’s order “unwarranted.” I mean, I suppose maybe it could be unwarranted. I’m not sure. What do you think?
Nicholas: (23:57):
Yeah, based on his wording, too—it sounds sincere, but at the same time, I’m wondering if any false alarms could be triggered by local law enforcement that would then cause the National Guard to be deployed. And then who knows what would happen after that. So I’m a little concerned about that part.
Adam Watson (24:54):
Well, yeah. I mean, again, this is just from my interpretation of his wording, but it sounds like the Guard would not be present at the protests themselves. It sounds like they would just be on standby and ready to go very quickly. So I’m not sure if a false alarm could—like, I think it would have to go up the chain of command to the point where either the mayor or the police commissioner would have to request help. Unless the governor just decides to unilaterally send them in. But I’m not sure.
I mean, my read on Mike Kehoe is that he’s a traditional Republican. He doesn’t seem like the kind of governor who wants to snatch headlines or grab attention—like, intentionally doing provocative stuff like unilaterally deploying the National Guard. He’s only been governor for five or six months, something like that. But that’s just been my read on him so far. He’s a traditional Republican—at least traditional for this time. But I could be proven wrong.
I guess we’ll see how that plays out on Saturday. Texas is also calling out its National Guard in a slightly different way than Missouri is. I believe Greg Abbott is actually sending them to San Antonio—actively to the city—instead of just putting them on standby. So he’s deploying over 5,000 National Guard troops.
Along with more than 2,000 state police to help local law enforcement manage the protests that are going on against Donald Trump and the ICE raids. He did not say where they would be sent, but some were seen at a protest Wednesday night in downtown San Antonio, near the Alamo.
So I guess possibly a similar thing to Mike Kehoe’s deployment of the National Guard—more so of an on-standby thing, or possibly just sending them in to where they see protests. I guess we’ll have to wait and see how that transpires. But yeah, so far, two states have preemptively activated or deployed their National Guard ahead of the protests on Saturday.
So Nicholas, do you think that the military parade could continue the whole chain of protests we’ve been seeing? There’s been a lot of momentum behind the “No ICE” protests, as they have been dubbed. But do you think these “No Kings” protests could continue the momentum of the protests we’ve seen recently?
Nicholas: (27:56)
Well, if things keep going as they are in terms of Trump’s policy and his actions, I think absolutely. So far, I’ve seen no sign of stopping. Things have obviously slowed down a little since his first day in office, but things have been really turbulent. And right now, there are a lot of things to protest, and they’ll probably continue coming, really. So I don’t expect the protests to really slow down.
Adam Watson (28:51):
Yeah, this is my opinion, obviously, but I feel like the things we have seen in the last couple of days—in regards to these protests and in regards to what we’ve seen with the National Guard—I feel as though this administration is taking a lot of steps toward authoritarianism.
Both with the military parade—which, I mean, we haven’t done since the end of the Gulf War. We’ve only done military parades after significant victories like World War I, World War II, Gulf War, etc. And now to just be doing one on a day that happens to be the president’s birthday. And then in addition to that, mobilizing troops in response to protests.
And then not only deploying the National Guard, but also deploying Marines to the city where the protest is happening. And then saying to others planning protests that they would crack down on those protests.
And then, also—we forgot to mention this—there was some back and forth over the weekend and into Monday, where President Trump suggested that Gavin Newsom should be arrested. When asked what his crime was, Trump said, basically, he ran and he’s been a terrible governor. So that’s what he said his crime is.
Nicholas: (30:32)
Didn’t he also say in a question posed to him that if he was the person seeking out an arrest warrant for Gavin Newsom, he would arrest him?
Adam Watson (30:46):
Yeah, so the question was—should Tom Homan, who is the immigration czar for the Trump administration—there was some question about basically Tom Homan put out a statement saying that nobody, regardless of their position, if they interfere with ICE operations, if they violate the law, then they will be arrested.
Then the reporter asked Tom Homan if he would include Gavin Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in that. He said, if they broke the law, then yes. Then a reporter asked President Trump about that. And he said, “If I were Tom, I would do it.” But then Tom Homan later clarified that he did not believe Gavin Newsom had violated the law, and thus would not arrest him at the present moment.
But still, the president suggesting that the governor of a state should be arrested for simply opposing what he is doing is an unfortunate scenario—kind of further highlights the dangerous direction this country is possibly headed in, toward authoritarianism.
Okay, so just before we got on—just a little bit of breaking news—Israel struck its nuclear and military sites. The commander in chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was killed in the Israeli attack. Properties in Iran have been damaged by Israeli airstrikes. Israel’s health ministry has instructed hospitals to halt outpatient services and move people to protected areas. They have halted schools. They have banned public assemblies in preparation for the Iranian response. I was taking a look at it. Asian stock markets are crashing. The U.S. stock market futures are already down 2%. Later on—possibly tomorrow—on our YouTube page, I’m going to post a short video just kind of talking about this. Just a short breaking news thing.
Okay, so thank you for listening to “Simplifying the State.” We’ll be back next week—hopefully—with our episode about the history of price gouging by the military-industrial complex and how that’s led to an increased defense budget, now over a trillion dollars.
If you’re listening to this podcast and enjoy it, please feel free to rate it on Spotify or wherever you are listening. Every rating helps. Make sure to follow the podcast again—YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify—wherever you’re listening. And we will see you next week. All right? And remember: possibly short video tomorrow, just me breaking down what the whole Iran-Israel thing could mean. All right. See you next week.
